Ray's Thought for the Day - Where'd They Go?
Last night I was makin' a resolute effort to keep my chin up while reading an article from the Journal of Anthropological Research. That particular article, a 1996 reprint originally publbished in 1982, has the subtitle "The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archaeology". If I can fit it to my busy schedule, I shall read that article again today, for it tugged at my heartstrings. Apparently the archaeologists of that time and place were troubled about whether archaeology is scientific. Some of them apparently wanted to be scientists, but some of them apparently didn't care if they were scientists or not, and some of them wanted to be different kinds of scientists than others. So far that's all I've figured out, maybe, or remember about that article, which is why la, la, la.
Anyway, since I may have found a arrowhead or two during this iteration and I actually read most of "Stonehenge Decoded" by G.S. Hawkins, I know about as much about archaeology as the numerous experts in landscape ecology that can reliably identify less than 10 plants species know about the environment. So I am an expert on this general subtopic and feel obliged to spell about it now and perhaps anon, after I re-read that article, maybe.
So what happened to all the blue stones that are missing from Stonehenge? According to Mr. Hawkins, at least by inference, a great many of them have been hauled off because they were there at the site at one time, but now they are not at the site. Where'd they go? These are substantial stones that, unless they were busted up in situ and then hauled off, should be easy to track down. Britain is fairly little, tales spell,and it should be easy to find great big stones in such a little countryside. Is there any evidence that some of them were busted up in situ? That should be detectable. Right?
So what I would do if I was an archaeologist in Britian is, I would spend my entire life and other peoples' resources in tracking down those missing stones, assuming they didn't get busted up. Then I would make sure that every last one of the intact ones got put back where it's supposed to go. If a castle or two needed to be pulled down to get at those stones, so much the better.
_____
to be revised anon by Ray Pistrum, maybe, and don't miss the next iteration of "The Adventures of Etain".
Anyway, since I may have found a arrowhead or two during this iteration and I actually read most of "Stonehenge Decoded" by G.S. Hawkins, I know about as much about archaeology as the numerous experts in landscape ecology that can reliably identify less than 10 plants species know about the environment. So I am an expert on this general subtopic and feel obliged to spell about it now and perhaps anon, after I re-read that article, maybe.
So what happened to all the blue stones that are missing from Stonehenge? According to Mr. Hawkins, at least by inference, a great many of them have been hauled off because they were there at the site at one time, but now they are not at the site. Where'd they go? These are substantial stones that, unless they were busted up in situ and then hauled off, should be easy to track down. Britain is fairly little, tales spell,and it should be easy to find great big stones in such a little countryside. Is there any evidence that some of them were busted up in situ? That should be detectable. Right?
So what I would do if I was an archaeologist in Britian is, I would spend my entire life and other peoples' resources in tracking down those missing stones, assuming they didn't get busted up. Then I would make sure that every last one of the intact ones got put back where it's supposed to go. If a castle or two needed to be pulled down to get at those stones, so much the better.
_____
to be revised anon by Ray Pistrum, maybe, and don't miss the next iteration of "The Adventures of Etain".
posted by ray pistrum at Friday, December 16, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home